IMPORTANT VERDICT To Previous Posting "Welcome ALL Immigrants Etc."

ALL Shafia Family Members Found Guilty Of First-Degree Murder!! Automatic LIFE SENTENCE!! NO Chance Of Parole For 25 YEARS!!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Mohammad Shafia, 58, his wife Tooba Yahya, 42, and their son Hamed, 21, were each found guilty of four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Shafia’s three teenaged daughters and his first wife.

Sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, along with Shafia’s other wife Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, were found dead on June 30, 2009 in a car at the bottom of a canal in Kingston.

From the start of the trial in October, prosecutors argued these were ”honour killings”—the Afghan-Canadian family’s answer to the young sisters’ perceived shameful behaviour.

”It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous, more honourless crime,” Justice Robert Maranger said in court after the verdict was delivered Sunday.

”The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honour…that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.”

“It really is quite an unusual and an astounding case,” he said. ”In order to restore family honour, family reputation, in order to cleanse the family’s shame…(these women) needed to be killed.”

Prosecutors had argued that the young Shafia sisters had shamed the conservative Afghan family—and especially its patriarch—by wearing revealing clothing, refusing to don hijabs and having boyfriends.

The jury heard that Zainab had previously run away from home and was briefly married to a Pakistani man Shafia did not approve of. The marriage was annulled within 24 hours.

Sahar also had a forbidden boyfriend, while the youngest of the three, Geeti, told her teachers she wanted to be placed in foster care. Mohammad Shafia’s first, infertile, wife had protected the girls, especially Sahar, whom she had been raising as her own, court heard.

Shafia and Yahya had seven children in total. After their arrests, the remaining children, all minors, were placed in foster care.

Court also heard damning wiretapped conversations between the accused in which, at one point, Shafia said of his dead daughters: ”God’s curse on them … May the devil shit on their graves.”

Teachers, child protection workers and police officers testified about reports from the girls that they were afraid of their father and brother and wanted to run away from home.

The Crown painted a picture of a highly dysfunctional polygamous family, with Shafia and Hamed exerting control over female members of the household and the two wives fighting for Shafia’s affections.

Yahya and Shafia refuted the Crown’s theory and evidence, saying they loved their children and would have never killed them. In interviews with police and on the stand, the couple maintained the deaths were a tragic accident.

The night the sisters and Mohammad disappeared, Zainab had asked to borrow the car keys, her parents told police. Zainab, an unlicensed and inexperienced driver, must have taken the group on a joyride and somehow ended up in the canal, they said.

But court heard conflicting versions of what happened that night. Yahya had initially told police the two Shafia men were at the canal when the car went in the water. But during her testimony, she told court that was lie.

Hamed never took the stand in his own defence, but court heard a taped conversation in which he admitted to a private investigator that he was at the scene.

Hamed said he had followed his sisters in a separate car out of concern and rear-ended them at the canal. While he was picking up pieces of shattered headlight, he heard a splash and ran over to the edge of the water. He said he dangled a rope and called his sisters’ names, but hearing no response, drove off and headed home to Montreal without calling 911.

While his client was “stupid” to make such a “terrible” mistake, he was no murderer, Hamed’s lawyer told the jury.

During closing arguments, defence lawyers for all three accused bristled at the suggestion of honour killings, saying the Shafia daughters were prone to lying and exaggerating their problems at home.

The defence also said the Crown failed to prove that any murder had been committed, failing to explain where and how the Shafia sisters and Mohammad were killed.

A pathologist testified that the cause of death for all four was drowning, though he couldn’t conclude if they drowned in the canal. The Crown alleged the four were dead before their car hit the water.

The court also heard from police and technical witnesses who testified it was unlikely the car could have fallen into the canal by accident.

With files from The Canadian Press

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Perhaps JUSTICE has Preveiled and will act as a Deterrent for ALL Others who come to CANADA and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Believe they can Live by THEIR Laws and IGNORE OURS!!

May The Sisters Zainab 19, Zahar 17, and Geeti 13, along with Rona Amir Mohammed 52 REST IN PEACE.

Thank You ALL for Reading this and any Comments You may care to leave.

A horror story all too common nowadays.If a foreign national applies for citizenship, then as part of their swearing in as a new citizen, a clause should be inserted to renounce their old country’s laws and uphold their new country’s laws. As a citizen you should be responsible to uphold ALL laws of your country of citizenship without exception.Similarly, if a citizen of one country resides or visits another country, then while there they should accept to conduct themselves within the laws of that country.Where the whole thing starts to go wrong is when a resident or visitor from one country has so idea that his citizenship country laws “trump” those of the country he/she chooses to be in.Some countries have bizarre laws by our standard, but they are their laws and have to be respected if you wish them to respect ours.Bottom line:All resident citizens of a country must live by the laws of that country.Foreign legal residents must also live by the laws of the country they reside in.Visitors should respect and accept the laws of the country they are visiting for the duration of their visit.Our laws do not apply to our citizens while in another country, our citizens should be aware it is not their country of citizenship and abide by the laws of the land they are in ….”when in Rome”....... We as a nation should not interfere in other nations laws, but we do, don’t we? We all need to respect laws of countries and abide by them when visiting or residing.

I’m not trying to defend this story Rick, I think it is a horror story and is one of those instances where notification and swearing to live by the nation’s laws would remove the question of foreign laws being considered.

-- Roger-R, Republic of Texas. "Always look on the Bright Side of Life" - An eyeball to eyeball confrontation with a blind person is as complete waste of Time.

Great post Rick,I’m glad you brought this story to the attention of all LJ’s. Let it be a reminder to all newly sworn in Canadians that we will not tolerate people taking their country’s laws into their own hands and applying those laws in our Canada and the U.S.A. I would like to think that all LJ’s would find this very offensive. Had it happened in some countries the death sentence would have been applied. Jack

I just saw this on TV. I’ve been following it for over a year.Justice is served! If people don’t like the laws,don’t go to that country.I used to go to Canada hunting and fishing and found their laws stricter than ours(US) however, you respect their law and you have no problems. I always felt welcome there. I’ll bet if I went to a mideast country like Afganistan or Pakistan I would not be treated that way. If I killed one of their people I’d get a death penalty. Unfortunately Canada has to support these slobs for the rest of their lives.

Henk Tepper was detained March 23 and is in a jail in Beirut, Lebanon. (CBC)A Drummond, N.B., farmer who sells potatoes overseas is being detained in Beirut, Lebanon.

At 3,000 acres, Tobique Farms is one of the largest producers in N.B.

The man who runs the family-owned farm, Henk Tepper, was detained March 23 and is in a jail in Beirut, Lebanon.

“The family is taking it very hard. I know Berend, his father, he’s not much around and very stressed. His wife is very stressed,” said Tepper’s brother-in-law, Mario leClerc.

“It’s in the situation that we don’t know much what’s happening, we don’t hear from him, no phone call, no nothing, no information from him. And everybody is starting to get stressed. And business-wise, we need him around,” said leClerc.

Tepper sells primarily seed potatoes from his and other farms to Lebanon, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia.

Tepper’s sister said he travels all the time and that it was a regular visit.

She said it’s growing season in Lebanon, so Tepper was doing a follow-up on the potatoes he’d sold there.

New Brunswick Potatoes said few farmers from the province sell overseas because of the risks. Provincial Agriculture Minister Michael Olscamp said the situation rests in the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

“We’re concerned for him and the family. The case is international in flavour, so it’s being handled by the Canadian federal agency, and through the Canadian consulate in Beirut, Lebanon,” said Olscamp.

In the meantime, Tepper’s family and friends wait anxiously.

“He’s gone everywhere in the world, so you think it might not be true, but we haven’t really heard the real, real story, so hopefully he’ll be back soon,” said neighbour Jacques Sirois.

Workers are also anxious. Planting season begins in May, and they say they need Tepper back.

CBC News did speak with Mike Allen, the MP for Tobique-Mactaquac. He would only say that foreign affairs officials in Beruit have spoken with Henk Tepper and that he is alright.

Whilst I agree, generally speaking, with what’s been said, I’d just like to point out that “Sharia Law” isn’t really the “law of another country”, per se. Rather, if you’re a Muslim, you believe in Islam, and Sharia Law is defined in the Koran (Qur’an), and is God’s Law, as written by God. Almost all countries have some sort of belief system that involves “God’s Law” (truth, righteousness, whatever you will) being “higher” than “man’s law”. Many “Oaths of Allegiance” end “so help me God”. Perhaps it is merely lucky in “western democracies” that “man’s laws” rarely contradict those countries vesions of “God’s Laws”, so such problems as these rarely surface. Capital punishment and abortion spring to mind as places where they potentially do contradict, and problems of which “law” to follow do arise. The Inquisition is another interesting case. Also consider the US Oath of Allegiance, which includes ”that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law” – a conscientious objector, eg Muhammad Ali, may well consider that that instruction goes beyond what “God” wants him to do, and defy “man’s law”.

I’m not trying to start any arguments about Islam, Canadian Law, US Law etc, nor am I attempting to defend what I regard as some cruel and unjust “laws” sometimes derived from the Koran. I just think it’s important to note that, in many of these “type” of cases the “baddies” are simply following their religious beliefs, and no amount of swearing oaths etc etc is going to change that.

-- "Do not speak – unless it improves on silence." --- "Following the rules and protecting the regulations is binding oneself without rope."

many of these “type” of cases the “baddies” are simply following their religious beliefs, and no amount of swearing oaths etc etc is going to change thatWhile I agree with that statement, I would also add that it doesn’t change abiding by our laws while in this country.If they can’t stand the heat get out of my country.

@Joe: I agree with you 100%. All you have to do is convince the idiots in Washington of this.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. no matter what fanatical religeous nut that person is. To murder in the name of whom ever you believe in is murder, and should be dealt the same hand they themselves dealt.

-- When I was a kid I wanted to be older . . . . . this CRAP is not what I expected !

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. no matter what fanatical religeous nut that person is. To murder in the name of whom ever you believe in is murder, and should be dealt the same hand they themselves dealt.

So that would include executioners in states/countries with capital punishment? Not to mention the jury who passed the sentence? And the judge who presided? And the legislature who passed the law permitting it? “Whoever you believe in here” is the state.You could argue that includes doctors performing abortions, and people do, and people get hurt because of it. “Whoever you believe in here” is the bible.You could also argue that includes the armed forces, all the way from the guy with the gun up to the C-in-C, who is I think, in the case of the US, the president.“Whoever you believe in here” is the state again.

But I’m fairly sure you won’t be classing these as murder, having seen some of your posts elsewhere. “Someone” is sanctioning these “murders”, sure, and, if you believe in those people, or that organisation, or that book, you say it’s OK and not, in fact, “murder”. But if you do not believe in that “someone”, organisation, or book, you say it’s murder.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. no matter what fanatical religeous nut that person is. To murder in the name of whom ever you believe in is murder, and should be dealt the same hand they themselves dealt.

Things are rarely so simple.

-- "Do not speak – unless it improves on silence." --- "Following the rules and protecting the regulations is binding oneself without rope."

To KnickKnack . . . Maybe the phrases I was using was somewhat confusing, as in the use of murder and/or murderer,as I can see you are maybe one of the fanatics I was referring to. Maybe some day when one of your loved ones life is taken out by one of your fellow fanatics, you will understand. As for me, I understand completely why we, as a society, execute others for their muderous crimes against humanity. This is supposed to be a deterent, not to incarcerate a sicko for life and, us as a society, be required to pay money to keep this sicko, who will then be a hero to all the other sickos. The belief you show, that by me calling whomever a murderer, is way beyond what I believe. As a last thought: My wife, her sister, and three of their friends was murdered by a religeous fanatic sicko with an AK-47. I would have gladly executed, NOT MURDERED, that sicko, but I didn’t have the chance, the state did it for me. Was I justified – yes. Was the state justified – yes. The reason they were murdered – “They were not Christians, they were Buddahists”. ??????????????????????

-- When I was a kid I wanted to be older . . . . . this CRAP is not what I expected !

To KnickKnack . . . Maybe the phrases I was using was somewhat confusing, as in the use of murder and/or murderer,My English is pretty good – I wasn’t at all confused by what you said.

It’s nice to present reasoned argument and then be called a fanatic, although I’m not sure what you’re actually accusing me, and my fictional fellow fanatics, of actually being fanatical about?Had you read what I said I didn’t condone the actions of these people, far from it – I merely seek to point out that many people answer to a higher “law” than that which is made by man. It’s useful to understand this.

Your post … ”I would have gladly executed” … indicates that you are equally prepared to ignore the law and murder (please look up definition – had you killed “that sicko” it would have been murder) soley because you think it’s justified – rather nicely, if I may say so, making my case.

-- "Do not speak – unless it improves on silence." --- "Following the rules and protecting the regulations is binding oneself without rope."

KnickKnack . . . My complete apologies for misunderstanding your reply. I am not a religeous person by any streatch of the means. My anger is focused at those who are the fanactics among us, and in particular, the main focus of this thread. My apologies . . .again. As by saying, “I would have gladly executed…...” was with the intent …IF… I had been the one to pull the switch. To me and, I would like to believe, numerous others in the like position would also do the same. Can you tell me you would not? Can others say the same? I doubt it, simply because others were not in that position. I guess there is a “higher law”, I don’t know. It’s all in what is, or is not, believeable.

-- When I was a kid I wanted to be older . . . . . this CRAP is not what I expected !